A Family That Eats Together

This past week, our 14-year old daughter informed me that we needed to buy a new waffle maker. Barely concealing her smile, she mentioned that it was an ultra-high-end brand that retails for over $1,000. I gently explained to her that such a purchase was, in fact, counterproductive, as it definitely didn’t make waffles that were any tastier and for $1,000 we could buy enough ingredients to make waffles for breakfast the better part of an entire school year. But I did start to wonder about the market segment that appliances like that target.

The same day, I finally got around to reading Salena Zito’s excellent piece in the Washington Examiner about big Sunday dinners, and how one man has undertaken to resurrect them in the hopes of restoring the sense of community they fostered when he was younger. Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone is the locus classicus for those bemoaning the atomization of contemporary American society, but – as Zito notes – there may be some encouraging signs that enough people sense it and are starting to do something about it.

What does this have to do with fancy kitchen appliances? Joshua Foer wrote a delightful book about competitors in the annual memory championships and, in the process, became a memory champ himself. One of the keys to remembering lists of anything, be they numbers, names, shopping items or lines of poetry, is creating texture or friction by adding additional dimensions to what you’re trying to remember. By adding, for example, mental images of items on a shopping list (like a stick of deodorant shampooing itself so you remember to buy both deodorant and shampoo), the additional mental energy you expend in organizing it can actually improve your recall.

The more I thought about this waffle maker, the more I wondered about some of today’s new appliances. As a culinary dilletante, I celebrate major advances like Stephen Poplawski’s blender in 1922 or Pierre Verdon’s home version of the commercial Robot-Coupe that debuted in Paris in 1971. They simplified and automated tasks that were very onerous by hand, if not altogether impossible. But my curmudgeonly side is reflexively suspicious of dubious advances like pre-cooked chicken breast cutlets or pre-sliced vegetables. Extrapolating from Foer, I think there’s value to doing your own kitchen prep, and even more value in pressing your kids into service as part of one big kitchen brigade. I think we value homemade meals differently than we do restaurant or take-out meals, even in ways not immediately obvious.

It’s always nice to enjoy table service at an upscale restaurant, of course, but eating is about a great deal more. When you serve up a dish that is completely ravaged by your family, the feeling of satisfaction is both extremely primal and extraordinarily gratifying. I can’t build a deck or change the brakes on my car. These are limitations I made my peace with years ago. But I can eat, I can cook, and I can manage people. Combining those can make for fun that is also educational and, with some luck and practice, tasty, as well.

In our case, meals are one big way we mark Jewish religious observances, from weekly Sabbath meals packed with family and friends to major productions like holidays and life cycle events. But my Italian friends always talk about their grandmothers’ Sunday dinners, which can play a similar role in binding one generation to the next. Whatever everyone is gathered for, they have to eat. And when generations are all together – and eating homemade food – talk inevitably turns to how one matriarch or another used to prepare this dish or that. The sights, sounds and aromas beget nuts-and-bolts talk of recipes, ingredients, tools and techniques – do you cook the meatballs before adding them to the sauce? What kind of breadcrumbs do you use? Where do you get these tomatoes? Is this cake from a mix? Your grandmother used to do this all by hand every week, you know, not with fancy appliances – tired and aching hands can recall the dexterity and fleetness of years ago. Family long gone suddenly find room at the table. Achievements and accomplishments are remembered. Resemblances to children are mooted, measured, and debated. Smiles, some tearful, break out and make their way around. New memories are forged, in no small part, alloyed to older ones.

Everybody eats, and it’s one of the first and most fundamental ways we connect to our mothers. My mother and I share a lot of our culinary repertoire, but we have our differences. Maybe it’s a window into how I began asserting some independence as an adult (which is a phenomenon that fascinates me when I observe it in other people). I love a lot of her signature dishes, but I have tastes she just cannot stand (like anything smoked or very spicy). So we have a light-hearted competition when it comes to the dishes we both make and she keeps turning up her nose at my brisket. But, sweet or savory, our bonding over food continues.

The foods we ate as kids can go on to resonate with us for a long time. It’s another reason I love food and use it to connect with my kids. My mother grew up in Israel, and has an expansive palate. She is as adept at making tagine chicken as she is Wiener schnitzel, Hungarian goulash or Persian rice. We’ve faithfully kept some of her greatest hits, but we have incorporated her openness to new gustatory adventures and I’ve Shanghaied each of our kids to help make Texas-style brisket, Japanese dashi, Vietnamese banh mi sandwiches, Pad Thai and sous-vide chicken with Florentine fennel pollen. I didn’t have to grow up enjoying them to encourage our kids to learn about other traditions and to join me in learning (and eating, of course).

We have several signature dishes in our house and we get the kids involved as much as we can. Chicken soup, for example, is a mainstay on the Friday night menu, and our twins now make the matzo balls, in the latest “mom” job that has been delegated to kids. After the weekend, we strain the leftover soup and reduce it by about ¾ or so to use as stock in all kinds of other dishes (something of a cheat to purists, I will concede) that the kids help prepare. These jobs – and skills – become parts in a much bigger portfolio of family heritage, and one that engages all five senses. I share my childhood memories, my mother’s techniques, my own personal tweaks and lessons learned from experiments undertaken and the kids’ reactions. My hope is that all this helps the memories stick, and becomes the foundation for my kids’ own culinary heritage that gets passed on to our grandchildren. With any luck, it’ll be one I still recognize, too.

We, the mothers, plant the seeds of curiosity, the wonder of creating something special to please many. Remember where it came from (basic, simple, flavored – all natural all the time). enhance your culinary vocabulary, experiment with new trends and ingredients – but for heaven’s sake don’t smoke it!Report

The good old family dinner is something we haven’t quite mastered yet. We continue to be more grazers in part because it’s so difficult for us to nail down a schedule. But that’s some pretty flimsy reason and this post reminds me that I need to make more of an effort to correct this.Report

I enjoyed this post a lot Yali. We made a real effort in the area of family meals with our daughters and I think it paid off. We used the kitchen table as a place to teach them manners and good eating habits (try it, you might like it) and then we sort of tested those things in restaurants, which we also took them to a lot. Happy to report both girls are excellent eaters with decent manners, though they didn’t quite develop the love of cooking that I have. Two out of three isn’t bad!Report

We always tried to have family dinner when the kids were at home. And I let/made them help.

When my daughter was in the high school life skills class they made everyone take one assignment was for groups of four to shop and prepare a dinner for four for $10 (spices and staples like oil were provided). My daughter said that the other people in her group were hopeless, so she said, “I got this.” Her story about bossing the two boys around in the school kitchen is excellent.Report

I notice that home designs have changed over the years, with the kitchen and bathrooms ballooning up to gargantuan size.

In the immediate postwar era, the kitchen was still small alcove separated from the formal dining room, which typically fed a household of 6 to 8 people.

Modern custom homes have about 2 to 3 members but the kitchens are enormous enough to service a hotel. I consider it almost axiomatic that the larger the kitchen, the less often it will be used.

Who has time to cook when you have to have two incomes to pay for the mortgage on all those acres of granite slabs?

I suppose that sounds a bit harsh.

But as I mentioned in the other thread that the happy benefits of modernity and classical liberalism, e.g. the freedom to pursue a career, the financial wealth to allow even single people to live alone, the social freedom to reorder the family structure into one which may or may not include children or a spouse has in many cases resulted in beautiful large dining tables where there just aren’t enough bodies living in the house to make a shared mealtime.

The linked article is interesting, in that the people interviewed display the same fragmented households. The solution is fascinating, in that these atomized bits of groups coalesce into a chosen form of community. Is this a quirk or the beginning of a new pattern of households and extended community?

If there is one thing that I would like to tell my younger-self about parenting, it would be to recognize that there’s a period where your kids are interested in you and what you’re doing, and while it may take a little longer to cook, clean, repair, etc., it’s worth it to involve them. No Tom Sawyer shenanigans required. At some point, they will start taking steps toward being autonomous individuals. Some of the things you did together will stick, others won’t, but at some point it’s too late to start new traditions.

Not a lot of regrets here, but just looking back I see the playing field differently and would probably make some marginal changes. But still, if the family is going to eat together every night, then a certain efficiency is required.Report

Religious Institutions. Religious institutions may resume services subject to the following conditions, which apply to churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, interfaith centers, and any other space, including rented space, where religious or faith gatherings are held: 1. Indoor religious gatherings are limited to no more than ten people. 2. Outdoor religious gatherings of up to 250 people are allowed. Outdoor services may be held on any outdoor space the religious institution owns, rents, or reserves for use. 3. All attendees at either indoor or outdoor services must maintain appropriate social distancing of six feet and wear face masks or facial coverings at all times. 4. There shall be no consumption of food or beverage of any kind before, during, or after religious services, including food or beverage that would typically be consumed as part of a religious service. 5. Collection plates or receptacles may not be passed to or between attendees. 6. There should be no hand shaking or other physical contact between congregants before, during, or after religious services. Attendees shall not congregate with other attendees on the property where religious services are being held before or after services. Family members or those who live in the same household or who attend a service together in the same vehicle may be closer than six feet apart but shall remain at least six feet apart from any other persons or family groups. 7. Singing is permitted, but not recommended. If singing takes place, only the choir or religious leaders may sing. Any person singing without a mask or facial covering must maintain a 12-foot distance from other persons, including religious leaders, other singers, or the congregation. 8. Outdoor or drive-in services may be conducted with attendees remaining in their vehicles. If utilizing parking lots for either holding for religious services or for parking for services held elsewhere on the premises, religious institutions shall ensure there is adequate parking available. 9. All high touch areas, (including benches, chairs, etc.) must be cleaned and decontaminated after every service. 10. Religious institutions are encouraged to follow the guidelines issued by Governor Hogan.

“There shall be no consumption of food or beverage of any kind before, during, or after religious services, including food or beverage that would typically be consumed as part of a religious service,” the order says in a section delineating norms and restrictions on religious services.

The consumption of the consecrated species at Mass, at least by the celebrant, is an integral part of the Eucharistic rite. Rules prohibiting even the celebrating priest from receiving the Eucharist would ban the licit celebration of Mass by any priest.

CNA asked the Howard County public affairs office to comment on how the rule aligns with First Amendment religious freedom and free exercise rights.

Howard County spokesman Scott Peterson told CNA in a statement that "Howard County has not fully implemented Phase 1 of Reopening. We continue to do an incremental rollout based on health and safety guidelines, analysis of data and metrics specific to Howard County and in consultation with our local Health Department."

"With this said," Peterson added, "we continue to get stakeholder feedback in order to fully reopen to Phase 1."

The executive order also limits attendance at indoor worship spaces to 10 people or fewer, limits outdoor services to 250 socially-distanced people wearing masks, forbids the passing of collection plates, and bans handshakes and physical contact between worshippers.

In contrast to the 10-person limit for churches, establishments listed in the order that do not host religious services are permitted to operate at 50% capacity.

In the early days of the Coronavirus epidemic, there were hopes that the disease could be treated with a compound called hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). HCQ is a long-established inexpensive medicine that is widely used to treat malaria. It also has uses for treating rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. There had been some indications that HCQ could treat SARS virus infections by attacking the spike proteins that coronaviruses use to latch onto cells and inject their genetic material. Initial small-scale studies of the drug on COVID-19 patients indicated some positive effect (in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin). President Trump, in March, promoted HCQ as a game-changer and is apparently taking it as a prophylaxis after potentially being exposed by White House staff.

Initial claims of the efficacy of this therapy were a perfect illustration of why we base decisions on scientific studies and not anecdotes. By late March, Twitter was filled with stories of "my cousin's mother's former roommate was on death's door and took this therapy and miraculously recovered". But such stories, even assuming they are true, mean nothing. With COVID-19, we know that seriously ill people reach an inflection point where they either recover or die. If they died while taking the HCQ regimen, we don't hear from them because...they died. And if they recover without taking it, we don't hear from them because...they didn't take it. Our simian brains have evolved to think that correlation is causation. But it isn't. If I sacrificed a goat in every COVID-19 patient's room, some of them would recover just by chance. That doesn't mean we should start a massive holocaust of caprines.

However, even putting aside anecdotes, there were good reasons to believe the HCQ regimen might work. And given the seriousness of this disease and the desperation of those trying to save lives, it's understandable that doctors began using it for critically ill patients and scientists began researching its efficacy.

Why Trump became fixated on it is equally understandable. Trump has been looking for a quick fix to this crisis since Day One. Denial failed. Closing off (some) travel to China failed. A vaccine is months if not years away. So HCQ offered him what he wanted -- a way to fix this problem without the hard work, tough choices and sacrifice of stay-at-home orders, masks, isolation and quarantine. So eager were they to adopt the quick fix, the Administration made plans to distribute millions of doses of this unproven drug in lieu of taking more concrete steps to address the crisis.[efn_note]Although the claim that Trump stands to profit off HCQ sales does not appear to hold much water.[/efn_note]

This is also why certain fringe corners of the internet became fixated on it. There has arisen a subset of the COVID Truthers that I'm calling HCQ Truthers: people who believe that HCQ isn't just something that may save some lives but is, in fact, a miracle cure that it's only being held back so that...well, take your pick. So that Democrats can wreck the economy. So that Bill Gates can inject us with tracking devices. So that we can clear off the Social Security rolls. And this isn't just a US phenomenon nor is it all about Trump. Overseas friends tell me that COVID trutherism in general and HCQ trutherism in particular have arisen all over the Western World.

It's no accident that the HCQ Truthers seem to share a great deal of headspace with the anti-Vaxxers. It fills the same needs

In both cases, the idea was started by flawed studies. The initial studies out of China and France that indicated HCQ worked were heavily criticized for methodological errors (although note that neither claimed it was a miracle cure). Since then, larger studies have shown no effect.

HCQ trutherism offers an explanation for tragedy beyond the random cruelty of nature. Just as anti-vaxxers don't want to believe that sometimes autism just happens, HCQ Truthers don't want to believe that sometimes nature just releases awful epidemics on us. It's more comforting, in some ways, to think that bad happenings are all part of a plan by shadowy forces.

There is, however, another crazy side that doesn't get as much attention because their crazy is a bit more subtle. These are the people who have decided that, since Trump is touting the HCQ treatment, it must not work. It can not work. It can not be allowed to work. There is an undisguised glee when studies show that HCQ does not work and a willingness to blame HCQ shortages on Trump and only Trump.[efn_note]Not to mention the odd fish tank cleaner poisoning that has nothing to do with him.[/efn_note]

In between the two camps are everyone else: scientists, doctors and ordinary folk who just want to know whether this thing works or not, politics and conspiracy theories be damned. Well, last week, we got a big indication that it does not. A massive study out of the Lancet concluded that the HCQ regimen has no measurable positive effect. In fact, death rates were higher for those who took the regimen, likely due to heart arrhythmias induced by the drug.

So is the debate over? Can we move on from HCQ? Not quite.

First of all, the study is a retrospective study, looking backward at nearly 100,000 cases over the last four months. That's a massive sample that allows one to correct for potential confounding factors. But it's not a double-blind trial, so there may be certain biases that can not be avoided. In response to the publication, a group doing a controlled study unblinded some of their data (that is, they let an independent group look up who was getting the actual HCQ and who was getting a placebo). It did not show enough of a safety concern to warrant ending the study.

It's also worth noting that because this is an unproven therapy, it is usually being used on only the sickest patients (the odd President of the United States aside). It's possible earlier use of the drug, when the body is not already at war with itself, could help.

With those caveats in mind, however, this study at least makes it clear that HCQ is not the miracle cure some fringe corners of the internet are pretending it is. And it should make doctors hesitant in giving to people who already have heart issues.

As you can imagine, this has only fed the twin camps of derangement. The truther arguments tend to fall into the usual holes that truther theories do:

"How can this be a four-month study when we only learned about COVID in January!" The HCQ protocol started being used almost immediately because of previous research on coronaviruses.

"How come all of the sudden this safe medicine that people use all the time is dangerous?!" The side effects of HCQ have been well known for years and have always required consideration and management. They may be showing up more strongly here because it is being given to patients whose bodies are already under extreme stress. Also, azithromycin may amplify some of those side effects.

"They just hate Trump." Not everything is about Donald Trump. If it turned out that kissing Donald Trump's giant orange backside cured COVID, scientists would be the first ones telling people to line up and use chapstick.

The other camp's response has ranged from undisguised glee -- that is, joy at the idea that we won't be saving lives cheaply -- to bizarre claims that Trump should be charged with crimes for touting this unproven therapy.

(A perfect illustration of the dementia: former FDA Head Scott Gottlieb -- who has been a Godsend for objective analysis during the pandemic -- tweeted out the results of the RECOVERY unblinding yesterday morning and noted that it showed no increased safety risk. He was immediately dogpiled by one side insisting he was trying to conceal the miracle cure of HCQ and the other insisting he is a Trumpist doing the Orange Man's dirty work.)

In the end, the lunatics do not matter. Whether HCQ works or not, whether it is used or not, will be mostly determined by doctors and will mostly be based on the evidence we have in front of us. If HCQ fails -- and it's not looking good -- my only response will be massive disappointment. Had HCQ worked, it would have been a gift from the heavens. It is a well-known, well-studied drug that can be manufactured cheaply in bulk. Had it worked, we could have saved thousands of lives, prevented hundreds of thousands of long-term injuries and saved trillions of dollars. That it doesn't appear to work -- certainly not miraculously -- is not entirely unexpected but is also a tragedy.

{C1} The Christian Science Monitor looks at 1918 and how sports handled that pandemic, and the role it played in giving rise to college football.

"That's really what started the big boom of college football in the 1920s," said Jeremy Swick, historian at the College Football Hall of Fame. "People were ready. They were back from war. They wanted to play football again. There weren't as many restrictions about going out. You could enroll back in school pretty easily. You see a great level of talent come back into the atmosphere. There's new money. It started to get to the roar of the Roaring '20s and that's when you see the stadiums arm race. Who can build the biggest and baddest stadium?"

{C2} During times of rapid change, social science is supposed to be able to help lead the way or at least decipher what is going on. Or maybe not...

But while Willer, Van Bavel, and their colleagues were putting together their paper, another team of researchers put together their own, entirely opposite, call to arms: a plea, in the face of an avalanche of behavioral science research on COVID-19, for psychology researchers to have some humility. This paper—currently published online in draft format and seeding avid debates on social media—argues that much of psychological research is nowhere near the point of being ready to help in a crisis. Instead, it sketches out an “evidence readiness” framework to help people determine when the field will be.

{C3} There is a related story about AI - which is predisposed towards tracking slow change over time - is having trouble keeping up.

{C4} The Covid-19 does not bode well for higher education is not news. They may have a lot of difficulty opening up (and maybe shouldn't). An added wrinkle is kids taking a gap year, which is potentially a problem because those most able to pay may be least likely to attend.

{C5} People who can see the faults with abstinence only education fail to see how that logic (We shouldn't give guidance to people doing things we would rather they not do in the first place). Emily Oster argues that the extreme message of public health advocates to Just Stay Home is counterproductive.

When people are advised that one very difficult behavior is safe, and (implicitly or not) that everything else is risky, they may crack under the pressure, or throw up their hands. That is, if people think all activities (other than staying home) are equally risky, they figure they might as well do those that are more fun. If taking a walk at a six-foot distance from a friend puts me at very high risk, why not just have that friend and a bunch of others over for a barbecue? It’s more fun. This is an exaggeration, of course, but different activities carry very different risks, and conscientious civic leaders should actively help people choose among them.

{C6} A look at what canceling the football season will do to the little guys - non-power schools. Ironically, they may sustain less damage due to fewer financial obligations relying on the money that won't be coming in. Be that as it may, Fordham has disestablished its baseball program.

{C7} Bans on evictions and rental spikes could have the main effect of simply pushing out small investors, rather than protecting renters. In a more good-faith economy this would be less of an issue because landlords would work with tenants. Which some are, though I don't have too much faith about it being widespread.

{C8} Three cheers for Nick Saban. Football coaches are cultural leaders of a sort. One is about to become a senator in Alabama, even. What they do matters.

The American college experience for better or for worse revolves around the residency factor. We have turned college into a relatively safe place for young adults to the test the limits of freedom without suffering too many consequences. Better to miss a day of classes because you drank too much than to miss a day of an apprenticeship or job and get fired. College was cut short this semester because of COVID and colleges are freaking out about whether they can open up dorms in the fall. The dorms are big money makers and it is hard to justify huge tuition bucks for zoom lectures even for elite universities. Maybe especially for them. California State University announced that Fall 2020 is going to be largely online. My undergrad alma mater sent out an e-mail blast announcing their plan to reopen in the fall with "mostly" in person classes. The President admitted that the plan was a work in progress but it strikes me as a combination of common sense and extreme wishful thinking. The plan may include:

1. Staggered drop-off days to limit density as we return.

This sounds reasonable but only in a temporary way because eventually everyone will be back on campus, living in dorm rooms together, needing to use communal bathrooms and showers.

2. Students would be tested for COVID-19 on campus at least twice in the first 14 days.

There is nothing wrong with this as long as the testing is available. Our capacity for testing so far in this country has not been great.

3. Anyone experiencing symptoms would be tested immediately. Students who test positive would be cared for in a separate dormitory area where food would be brought to the room and where the student could still access classes remotely.

Nothing wrong here. Outbreaks of certain diseases are not unknown in the college setting. During my senior year, there was an outbreak of a rather nasty strain of gastroenteritis. Other universities have experienced meningitis outbreaks.

4. All students would take their temperature and report symptoms daily.

This one is also reasonable but is going to involve spying on students and coming up with a punishment mechanism. How will they make sure students are not lying?

5. We would also require that socializing be kept to a minimum in the beginning, with proper PPE (masks) and social distancing. As time went on, we would seek to open up more, and students could socialize and eat together in small groups.

I have no idea how they tend for this to happen and it sets of all my lawyer bells for carefully crafted language that attempts to answer a concern or question but also admits "we got nothing." Maybe today's students are more somber and sincere but you are going to have around 500 eighteen year olds who are away from their parents for the first time and another 1500 nineteen to twenty-one year olds who had their semester rudely interrupted and might now be reunited with boyfriends and girlfriends. Are they going to assign eating times for the dining hall and put up solo eating cubicles that get wiped down and disinfected after each use? Assign times to use laundry facilities in each dorm? Cancel the clubs? Cancel performances by the theatre, dance, and music departments?

I am sympathetic to my alma I love it but and realize that a lot of colleges and universities would take a real hit financially without residency. This includes universities with reasonable to very large endowments. Only the ones with hedge fund size endowments would not suffer but the last part of the plain sounds not fully thought out yet even if my college's current President admitted: "Life on campus will not look the same as it did pre-pandemic" The only way i see number 5 working is if requiring is read as "requiring."

Seems that the theory that Covid-19 can be spread by asymptomatic people has very shaky evidence in support of it. Turns out the case this assumption was made from was based on a single woman who infected 4 others. Researchers talked to the 4 patients, and they all said the patient 0 did not appear ill, but they could not speak to patient 0 at the time.

So they finally got to talk to her, and she said she was feeling ill, but powered through with the aid of modern pharmaceuticals.

Ten Second News

Today we couldn’t be happier to announce that Vox Media and New York Media are merging to create the leading independent modern media company. Our combined business will be called Vox Media and will serve hundreds of millions of audience members wherever they prefer to enjoy our work.

In a nation in turmoil, it's nice to have even a small bit of good news:

Representative Steve King of Iowa, the nine-term Republican with a history of racist comments who only recently became a party pariah, lost his bid for renomination early Wednesday, one of the biggest defeats of the 2020 primary season in any state.

In a five-way primary, Mr. King was defeated by Randy Feenstra, a state senator, who had the backing of mainstream state and national Republicans who found Mr. King an embarrassment and, crucially, a threat to a safe Republican seat if he were on the ballot in November.

The defeat was most likely the final political blow to one of the nation’s most divisive elected officials, whose insults of undocumented immigrants foretold the messaging of President Trump, and whose flirtations with extremism led him far from rural Iowa, to meetings with anti-Muslim crusaders in Europe and an endorsement of a Toronto mayoral candidate with neo-Nazi ties.

King, you may remember, was stripped of his committee assignments last year when he defended white supremacism. Two years ago, he almost lost his Congressional seat in the general. That is, a seat that Republicans have held since 1986, usually win by double digits and a district Trump carried by a whopping 27 points almost came within a point or two of voting in a Democrat. That's how repulsive King had gotten.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Enjoy retirement, Congressman. Oops. Sorry. In January, it will be former Congressman.

Comment →

From the Daily Mail: Deadliest city in America plans to disband its entire police force and fire 270 cops to deal with budget crunch

The deadliest city in America is disbanding its entire police force and firing 270 cops in an effort to deal with a massive budget crunch.

...

The police union says the force, which will not be unionized, is simply a union-busting move that is meant to get out of contracts with current employees. Any city officers that are hired to the county force will lose the benefits they had on the unionized force.

Oak Park police say they are investigating “suspicious circumstances” after two attorneys — including one who served as a hearing officer in several high-profile Chicago police misconduct cases — were found dead in their home in the western suburb Monday night.

Officers were called about 7:30 p.m. for a well-being check inside a home in the 500 block of Fair Oaks Avenue, near Chicago Avenue, and found the couple dead inside, Oak Park spokesman David Powers said in an emailed statement. Authorities later identified them as Thomas E. Johnson, 69, and Leslie Ann Jones, 67, husband and wife attorneys who worked in Chicago.

The preliminary report from an independent autopsy ordered by George Floyd's family says the 46 year old man's death was "caused by asphyxia due to neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain".

The independent examiners found that weight on the back, handcuffs and positioning were contributory factors because they impaired the ability of Floyd's diaphragm to function, according to the report.

Dr. Michael Baden and the University of Michigan Medical School's director of autopsy and forensic services, Dr. Allecia Wilson, handled the examination, according to family attorney Ben Crump.

Baden, who was New York's medical examiner in 1978 and 1979, had previously performed independent autopsies on Eric Garner, who was killed by a police officer in Staten Island, New York, in 2014 and Michael Brown, who was shot by officers in Ferguson, Missouri, that same year.

Featured Comment

Oddly, the video was dropped by an attorney friend the men, because he thought it would exonerate them. He assumed when people saw Aubrey turn and try to defend himself, everyone would see what they did: a dangerous animal needing to be put down.